[getopt-sig] Comparing option libraries

[A.T. Hofkamp]

On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Matthias Urlichs wrote:

> The same story happens with --quiet/--verbose. If somebody specifies "-q
> -vv" then that should be an error. However, if the configuration file says
> "-v" and the command line "-q", that's OK.

I agree. The program may 'find' option settings from various places, and
combine them in a well-defined and (preferably) sensible way.
Usually, there is a precedence relation between option settings from different
sources, which is fine as far as I can see.

This does raise the question of other places where options can be found.
- Should the standard package be able to deal with them ?
- Should we use the same syntax, or would a different syntax be allowed ?
- Is a precedence relation ok ?
- How do the various toolkits handle option settings from different sources ?
  (argtools does not currently, at least not in a nice way).

Plenty of questions I think.... :-)

> Configuration files, however, are NOT command line options. A config file
> should not be forced to look like a command line just so that the command
> line parser is happy.

We are on sliding ground here I think. We are very much moving towards a
full-featured command line package that understands any syntax we come up with.

<broad smile>
I knew we would end up with a scanner and parser for our option processing.
</broad smile>


>
> >   Very rough, untested implementation:
> >
> Looks sensible, except for the typo:  ;-)
> >         return _NOMATH

Just a test whether people are reading the code :-)


Tnx for the comment,
Albert
-- 
Constructing a computer program is like writing a painting